People v Polanco (Carlos)

[*1] People v Polanco (Carlos) 2017 NY Slip Op 51348(U) Decided on October 11, 2017 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 11, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Gonzalez, JJ.
570005/13

The People of the State of New York,

against

Carlos Polanco, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J., on motion to dismiss; James M. Burke, J. at trial), rendered March 23, 2012, after a jury trial, convicting him of stalking in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Felicia A. Mennin, J., on motion to dismiss; James M. Burke, J. at trial), rendered March 23, 2012, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of fourth degree stalking (see Penal Law § 120.45[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determination concerning credibility. Ample evidence to support the "reasonable fear" and "no legitimate purpose" elements of the offense was presented by the testimony of complainant and an eye-witness regarding defendant's course of conduct toward complainant, including his following her closely for approximately fifteen minutes as she walked through an underground tunnel and then out onto the street, while defendant harassed her with distressing and menacing remarks, such as "something bad ... could happen to you." The jury could rationally infer that defendant's conduct was designed to hound, frighten, intimidate and threaten complainant (see People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 428 [2003]).

Defendant's present challenges to the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument are similarly lacking in merit.

The misdemeanor complaint and supporting depositions charged all the elements of the offense, and set forth sufficient factual allegations to warrant the conclusion that defendant engaged in a course of conduct that was reasonably likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health or safety of complainant (see People v Brandel, 30 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50082[U] [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists. 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 828 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: October 11, 2017